W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Content vs. Carrier

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:52:52 -0700
Message-ID: <20100725155252.6w75rl2dwowocw8w@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
I, too, have no doubt that for some functions we will exchange records  
-- for example, for cataloging purposes, we may have a record that  
combined the essential data of the Work, Expression, and Manifestation  
(or some future version thereof).

However,  I think that our records will not be uniform in the way they  
are today. I can imagine that for many functions records may be  
created "on the fly" from a variety of resources. This is where tying  
the provenance to the record falls down. Although I guess that depends  
on what you mean by record... but a bibliographic description with  
authors, titles, subjects, publishers could be made up of many  
resources, each with relevant administrative data. The big question in  
my mind is what is the ideal level at which to record that  
administrative data? Trying to do so on a statement-by-statement basis  
is probably too costly and unwieldy. I suspect we will arrive at the  
best point through some trial and error.


Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:


> In the LLD approach a record (which is an information resource) without
> bibliographic data (which described non-information resources, even
> though in the "real world our books may be information resources but
> containing other data ;-) ) is meaningless, while bibliographic data
> could still be used independently of the record that initially
> contained it.

Yes, I agree, we have to assume that bibliographic data will be used  
outside of any context that we provide for it. But perhaps our own  
uses will retain the provenance, even if others do not?

kc


-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2010 22:53:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 25 July 2010 22:53:29 GMT